Eliezer’s anti-philosophy rant Against Modal Logics was pretty controversial, while my recent pro-philosophy (by LW standards) post and my list of useful mainstream philosophy contributions were massively up-voted. This suggests a significant appreciation for mainstream philosophy on Less Wrong—not surprising, since Less Wrong covers so many philosophical topics.
This opening paragraph set off a huge warning claxon in my bullshit filter. To put it generously it is heavy on ‘spin’. Specifically:
It sets up a comparison based on upvotes between a post written in the last month and a post written on a different blog.
Luke’s post is presented as a contrast to controversy despite being among the most controversial posts to ever appear on the site. This can be measured based on the massive series of replies and counter replies, most of which were heavily upvoted—which is how controversy tends to present itself here. (Not that controversy is a bad thing.)
Upvotes for a well written post that contains useful references are equivocated with support for the agenda that prompted the author to write it.
The first 3.5 words were “Eliezer’s anti-philosophy rant”. Enough said.
All of the above is unfortunate because the remainder of this post was overwhelmingly reasonable and a promise of good things too come.
I just realized that ‘rant’ doesn’t have the usual negative connotations for me that it probably does for others. For example, here is my rant about people changing the subject in the middle of an argument.
For the record, the article originally began “Eliezer’s anti-philosophy rant...” but I’m going to change that.
Rant doesn’t necessarily have negative connotations for me either, it really depends on the context. Your usage didn’t look pejorative at all to me. It’s sort of like a less intensive version of “vitriol” and there is no problem (implied) if the target deserves it (or is presented so).
It is similar to the word “extremist”, the technical definition is rarely only what people mean to invoke, and it’s acquiring further connotations.
Losing precise meaning is the way to newspeak, and it distresses me. It is sometimes the result of being uncomfortable with or incapable of discussing specific facts, which is harder than the inside view.
This opening paragraph set off a huge warning claxon in my bullshit filter. To put it generously it is heavy on ‘spin’. Specifically:
It sets up a comparison based on upvotes between a post written in the last month and a post written on a different blog.
Luke’s post is presented as a contrast to controversy despite being among the most controversial posts to ever appear on the site. This can be measured based on the massive series of replies and counter replies, most of which were heavily upvoted—which is how controversy tends to present itself here. (Not that controversy is a bad thing.)
Upvotes for a well written post that contains useful references are equivocated with support for the agenda that prompted the author to write it.
The first 3.5 words were “Eliezer’s anti-philosophy rant”. Enough said.
All of the above is unfortunate because the remainder of this post was overwhelmingly reasonable and a promise of good things too come.
Interesting, thanks.
By the way, what is ‘the agenda that prompted the author to write it’?
I just realized that ‘rant’ doesn’t have the usual negative connotations for me that it probably does for others. For example, here is my rant about people changing the subject in the middle of an argument.
For the record, the article originally began “Eliezer’s anti-philosophy rant...” but I’m going to change that.
Rant doesn’t necessarily have negative connotations for me either, it really depends on the context. Your usage didn’t look pejorative at all to me. It’s sort of like a less intensive version of “vitriol” and there is no problem (implied) if the target deserves it (or is presented so).
It is similar to the word “extremist”, the technical definition is rarely only what people mean to invoke, and it’s acquiring further connotations.
Losing precise meaning is the way to newspeak, and it distresses me. It is sometimes the result of being uncomfortable with or incapable of discussing specific facts, which is harder than the inside view.